The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Review, Feat. Sapphire & ASUS
by Ryan Smith on July 10, 2015 9:00 AM ESTCivilization: Beyond Earth
Shifting gears from action to strategy, we have Civilization: Beyond Earth, the latest in the Civilization series of strategy games. Civilization is not quite as GPU-demanding as some of our action games, but at Ultra quality it can still pose a challenge for even high-end video cards. Meanwhile as the first Mantle-enabled strategy title Civilization gives us an interesting look into low-level API performance on larger scale games, along with a look at developer Firaxis’s interesting use of split frame rendering with Mantle to reduce latency rather than improving framerates.
As one of the few games that can hit 60fps on the R9 Fury at 4K with everything turned up, it’s interesting to see how resolution impacts all of our cards with Civilization. At 4K the R9 Fury is well ahead of the GTX 980, surpassing it by 17%. Yet at 1440p that lead becomes a very slight loss, with the Sapphire Tri-X R9 Fury’s mild factory overclock giving it just enough of a boost to stay ahead of the GTX 980.
Meanwhile the Fury/Fury X gap widens ever so slightly here. The R9 Fury is now a full 10% behind the full-fledged Fury.
The minimum framerate situation for Civilization is very nearly a mirror of the averages. The R9 Fury does relatively well at 4K, but at 1440p it’s now neck-and-neck with the GTX 980 once again.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
288 Comments
View All Comments
CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
If you still can't understand numbers but only can understand bar colors, I can sum up things for you for the same game (Crysys 3) also for the techpowerup review at 2560x1440 (the resolution for this kind of cards):At 780Ti presentation (nov 2013)
780ti 27
290X 26.3
At Fuxy X presentation (so, last week):
780ti 29.3
290X 29.4
So the 290X passed from -0.7fps to +0.1fps... WOW! That is a miracle!!!!!
Only a fanboy should think about that, or one that does not understand benchmarks numbers, can't interpret them and can only see bar length/relative positions.
You see a similar trend with Battlefield 3, where the 290X from -3fps became -0.3fps. And both cards have raised their FPS.
So, yes, AMD recovered a fraction of nothing and nvidia didn't crippled anything.
You have also not noted that in the meantime AMD changed the 290X policy on BIOS and custom, so all cards have become "uber" and better custom radiators allowed the card not to be throttled. So the advantage of this performance is reserved for those that have bought these cards, not for those that have bought the "not sampled" reference ones (can you remember the issue about those cards in retail market that have quite different performances with respect to those send to reviewers?). Yes, another miracle...
These are the MYTH I like reading about that only fanboy can sustain. These are the type of arguments that let you clearly spot a fanboy in the group.
CiccioB - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
So, where are the facts sustaining your myth? I can't see them and it seems you can't provide them either.Yes, 780Ti a crappy investment... it was good the 290X with stuttering all over the place that still continues today with DX9 games.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Thank you CiccioB, I was wondering if another sane person was here.loguerto - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
This is the primary reason why i buy AMD, because i am not willing to change my hardware every year i brought a 290x in 2013 and in that period it was neck to neck with the 780 ti, after nearly two years the 290x destroys the 780 ti and beats constantly even the 970, which at it's release was ahead. The 970 remained there with the performance meanwhile the 290x continued improving. I am so glad i brought the 290x.CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
You are a poor man with no clue on what it is buying. Your justification for buying the cheaper card on the market are quite pitiful.I bet you can't report a single case where Kepler run faster before than it is today. Nor can't you evaluate how much this miraculous" AMD drivers have improved your gaming experience.
Can you? Let's see these numbers.
If not, well, just don't go on with this king of talking because it really picture you (all AMD fanboys) more ridiculous than you already are.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
What the HELL are you babbling about ?The 980 wasn't realeased THEN at your "proof link" and the 290x is winning over the 780...
WHAT FANTASY HAVE YOU CONVINCED YOURSELF OF YOU AMD FANBOY... TIME WILL NOT HEAL THE FURY AND FURY X LOSSES !
mikato - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
I agree. This would make a fantastic article - and a unique critical thinking subject that Anandtech is well positioned to undertake and is known for. It would certainly generate traffic and be linked to like crazy, hint hint.ajlueke - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
"The R9 Fury offers between 8% and 17% better performance than the GTX 980, depending on if we’re looking at 4K or 1440p""I don’t believe the R9 Fury is a great 4K card"
"in a straight-up performance shootout with the GTX 980 the R9 Fury is 10% more expensive for 8%+ better performance."
"This doesn’t make either card a notably better value"
So at resolutions under 4K, which are the applications you recommend for the R9 Fury, it performs 17% better than the GTX 980 for 10% more price, and yet you conclude it is not a better value? Help me out here. It would be more accurate to say that neither card is a better value for 4K gaming, where the difference was indeed 8%. Any resolution below that, the Fury X is indeed a better value.
Ryan Smith - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
At 1440p the Fury X is 8% faster for 10% more cost. From a value standpoint that's a wash.At 4K the lead is upwards of 17%, but on an absolute basis it's a bit too slow if you're serious about 4K.
ajlueke - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Thanks for the clarification. Also, I really appreciate the inclusion of the 7970 data, as I currently run a 3.5 yr old reference version of that card.